God and the Celestial Teapot
The genius, Bertrand Russell, provided an explanation of atheism that has never been equaled. Even though it is from the 1950's, you will often hear a version of his Celestial Teapot at lectures on atheism:
I am told often it is my responsibility to disprove there is a god. This requirement is exactly what was ridiculed by Russell. If we first assume the teapot circling the sun is too small to be seen even by the most powerful microscope those who claim it is there have cleverly ducked any responsibility.
With no responsibility placed on those who make teapot claims, it is possible for everyone to claim a different teapot circling the sun. Then, they could get into arguments about what color the REAL teapot is. Or, how large it is. Rather like the arguments that one fine point in religion is more true than some other fine point.
These latter are the kind of arguments we have about a god. Since no one can see, nor has ever seen, the god or the teapot we can argue about what it would be like if we did see it. The arguments are all the more safe because no one will ever see either.
Since children are told from day one there is a god, like they are told in the teapot story, it is difficult for them later in life to believe neither the teapot nor the god is there.
Funny, very funny. I don't think that it is a matter of who can prove what: It's a matter of rational dialog, avoiding, among other things, cute little stories about celestial teapots. How about seriously arguing about Aquinas's Five Ways. Or Anselm's argument for the existence of God. BTW, if you get right down to it, I would contend that atheists have no more knock down, hard "proof" for their position than do the people they attack have for theirs. Ultimately, a degree of faith enters in, whether on the theist side or on the a-theist side. In fine, we know that Russell was a brilliant mathematician. But a theologian? And, to return to an earlier post, have you ever seen a "cause".
ReplyDeletere: Aquinas's Five ways--This ancient stuff has been so completely debunked I will not spend time on it. Have you ever heard of "circular reasoning." He makes that mistake. He's over.
ReplyDeletethat's your mistake, so sad. Debunked by whom? by atheists? talk about circular reasoning. premise, there is no god, something that all of our smart moderns know, therefore, we can dismiss any pre-modern thinker out of hand. arrogance?
ReplyDelete"talk about circular reasoning" Correct me here. I see circular reasoning in Christianity like this: "There has to be a god. Therefore, there is a god." I see atheists logic like this: "We have seen no evidence of a god. We don't know how the universe began." I, myself, do not see circular reasoning by atheists but see it in Christianity, especially in Aquinas. Tell me where it is in atheism.
ReplyDelete"We have seen no evidence of a god". For openers that is factually untrue. Evidence, whether you like it or not, includes the undeniable fact that mankind claims to have witnessed and believed in gods of many sorts. You can debunk that evidence if you like, smugly claiming that history, in that regard, should be discarded, dismissed. That, it seems to me, requires a giant leap of faith. But to the point: you posit a sweeping assertion and then proceed to "prove" your assertion, ending with the conclusion that gods do not exist, never existed and never will exist. I call that circular reasoning of a sort. Pretty much the same as what you accuse Aquinas of doing. Or maybe it's more like begging the question: petition principia, the fallacy of taking for granted that which remains to be proved (e.g. stating as a matter of proof that parallel lines will never meet because they are parallel).
ReplyDelete"Evidence...includes..that mankind claims to have witnessed and believed in gods of many sorts." I concede I should have qualified my assertion there is no evidence by saying "using the standards of evidence required outside of religion, there is no evidence." Outside of religion one would need to replicate or have more than one person observe and know whom exactly saw what is claimed. Nothing like this latter exists. It exists within religion only.
Delete"...gods do not exist, never existed and never will exist." If I actually ever said this I apologize. I agree it would be circular reasoning to say gods cannot exist therefore the do not exist. My considered position is that we do not have evidence using standards required outside of religion to confirm there is a god or gods. There are also things we do not understand but there is no reason to have a default position these things prove there is a god. They simply remain unexplained.
what standards of evidence outside of religion? please explain. BTWI said that human history provides evidence: I did not say proof.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhoops. Deleted my own comment. I was referring to evidence you would use if someone told you they had talked to God or Jesus personally just last week. You would want to know if anyone else was present, who that person who was present was and you would want to talk to that person. This is what any of us would do outside of religion. Inside religion none of that is required. Thus, that millions of people believed there were gods is not evidence there actually were gods. Sorry I used the word "proof". What the ancients wrote in the Bible is not evidence there was a god. All those who have believed in gods IS evidence many people have needed to believe in gods. Again, it is not evidence the gods existed.
ReplyDeleteYou pattern of thinking is straight forward Catholic and Orthodox. Matt thinks in the way you do. My orthodox priest friend, Father Erble in Fargo, explains these things about gods is "tradition" and this makes them important. I agree they are important in the effect they have had on history. There remains no evidence outside of religious beliefs there have been or are today gods.